- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Lower Bridge Street, Peterborough (via StreetView)‘Is cycling ban just a money-making exercise?’ asks man fined for cycling in Peterborough
A Peterborough man who was handed an on-the-spot £80 fine for riding his bike at walking pace while carrying his two-year-old daughter has asked why officers cannot use their discretion when handing out fixed penalty notices. The enforcement firm patrolling the area covered by the city’s Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) keeps the money it collects as part of its contract with the city council.
Peterborough’s PSPO sees fixed penalty notices issued for a series of offences, including cycling in certain areas.
On March 26, road.cc reader Stephen was stopped by an Officer Watson on Bridge Street while cycling at walking pace carrying his two-year-old daughter in a rear child's seat.
He was informed that cycling in the area was a criminal offence and he was issued an on-the-spot £80 fine.
“It stunned me at the time that I was not simply asked to dismount and pointed out the reasoning, but instead was issued a fine,” said Stephen.
“Since moving to Peterborough in 2006, I've commuted to the train station every day along Lower Bridge Street (with cycle paths clearly delineated outside the magistrates’ court that neighbour the no-cycle zone), heading up Bourges Boulevard toward the station and never have I been aware of any potential criminality from continuing to cycle past the crossing into Bridge Street.
“If the council is insistent on fining cyclists in the city for the fallacious reason of 'safety', and not as a money making exercise, then pavement level signs need implementing as a better way of warning them.
“Along Lower Bridge Street and into Bridge Street (which visually look like a continuous path into the city centre), there is such a contrast from the cycle lanes that encourage cyclists (with their signs embedded in the pavement), to the section of no-cycling using signs 8ft off the ground, that for a cyclist to be looking up-high and down-low as they travel is a danger not only to them, but other people around them.”
Last year we reported how the enforcement firm patrolling the area, Kingdom, had collected over £80,000 in fines for unauthorised cycling in a little under a year. The firm’s contract means that it keeps that money.
Stephen said: “To use the bike in a safe manner, as a means to carry a young child, and then be stopped and issued an £80 fine for anti-social behaviour is abhorrent to me.
“And that a council can wilfully penalise its residents for using the city centre to shop (I had a shopping bag with me), is also infuriating.
“High streets across the country are slowly dying, and fining users of the city on bicycles doesn't seem like a good way to stimulate economic growth. An £80 fine has actually put me off wanting to travel to the city centre any more, whether by car, bike or bus.”
Stephen believes that it should fall to the discretion of the officer as to whether a fine is issued.
“I say this as Officer Watson said several times he did not agree with the fine he was issuing. I am aware that the entire incident was captured on his bodycam – he advised me of this several times, which came across as slightly intimidatory given how I was just trying to travel safely out of the city after shopping with my young daughter.
“During the exchange with him, he first asked me for ID, then when I said I didn't have any on me, proceeded to confirm the details I gave him on his phone to confirm I wasn't lying.
“From enjoying a pleasant time in the city with my daughter, to then have this confrontation and treated as a criminal is a little too dystopian for me.”
Stephen said that the same morning, he had taken his eldest daughter to school on a bicycle, and she'd been awarded a sticker congratulating her. This was because of Sustrans’ Big Pedal, which is supported by Peterborough Council.
“It seems very confusing that on one hand, cycling is being actively promoted as a way to travel the city (including clearly marked cycle lanes heading toward the city centre), and on the other hand, it is also a criminal offence in certain areas with Anti-Social Behaviour fines for doing so.”
Writing to Peterborough Today last year, another cyclist, Mark Booker, described a similar experience when he and a friend had ridden their bikes down Bridge Street.
“After several diversions, we find the centre of Peterborough, walk over a pedestrian crossing following a marked cycle path. Get back on our bikes, going at walking pace as we are looking for somewhere to park our bikes and bottoms.
“We are approached by two policemen – that’s what they look like anyway – who take down our details and fine us £80 each for cycling where we shouldn't be cycling. No discount for prompt payment.
“Going back to the street furniture by the pedestrian crossing, there was indeed a no-cycling sign. Right above the sign for the cycle path which we had honed in on.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- mitsky 4 min 11 sec ago
- previously loses licence for hitting 12 points...
- Secret_squirrel 19 min 48 sec ago
Cool, battery life looks awesome. Worth noting that longer range is not necessarily a good thing with these radars. They already penetrate...
- Rendel Harris 33 min 45 sec ago
So when you said "all Jews" you didn't actually mean all Jews, just religious ones. However even that distinction is erroneous, as you must surely...
- grasen 1 hour 7 min ago
are you a complete numpty??? it doesn't have disk brakes......
- andystow 1 hour 13 min ago
Isn't that basically what we did to our High Streets & Main Streets in the 1960s?
- Dnnnnnn 1 hour 27 min ago
Almost - but apparently not quite. There are in Northern Ireland.
- john_smith 2 hours 25 min ago
If you'd read it a bit more carefully you'll see that it also requires each new home to have at least three parking spaces. So it shouldn't be a...
- FionaJJ 2 hours 48 min ago
It took me ages to make sense of the story, because the bit about having bike parking is irrelevant to the issue about access. ...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 28 min ago
But how on earth do you expect people to know that's not allowed?...
Add new comment
37 comments
So the guy was cycling "at walking pace", with a child in a rear carrier seat? Kudos!
So, why not just walk the bike? Just as quick. And it is a no-cycling zone anyway, so really, why test the prohibition, for zero gain? It's perverse.
A bike with a 2 year old on the back and no rider at the front can be quite unstable. You'd have to take the child out of the seat and then you'd have problems keeping hold of both child and bike. It's much easier to ride at walking pace!
Spot on - if you replace "easier" with "safer".
Obviously Bridge Street Peterborough is part of National Cycle Network Route 12, on which cycling is banned between by the local council between the hours of 9am & 6pm.
#youcouldn'tmakeitup
https://goo.gl/maps/5mqM9YhrxUT2
And this is yet another reason not to stop for anyone unless it's a real police officer who is actually trying to physically pull you from your bike.
Anyone (including plod) pulling you from a bike is an assualt and should be treated as such, I read about someone via CUK forums being pulled off by a constable when doing random car checks in London some while back which ended up with them being bruised. The cuntstable (a female) denied assaulting the cyclist (because the bruising happened all by itself) and her colleagues standing not a few feet away said they didn't see anything!
Anyone pulling me off my bike will be met with defensive force to stop the kidnap/assault.
fnar
Been there, done that, made the complaint, been TTFO. Ended up paying a FPN just to get the whole thing over and done with.
You should have sought asylum at a suitable embassy (Ecuador?).
Oh you want to give me a fine? Well yes my name is Elizabeth Windsor and I live at Buckingham Palace. Byeeee!
Or...Robert Winston, c/o The House of Lords, Westminister.
You forgot the postcode: SW1A 0PW
.
Rights_www-scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg
If you are stopped, ask to see a warrant card.
If they are unable to produce one, ask to see a designation card.
If they are unable to produce either one, then they have no power to stop you; leave.
No, do neither. Don't speak a word, don't acknowledge their presence other than to swerve around them and cycle off.
But you should be aware of this. We are living in a viciously anti-cyclist era. We are probably the most hated minority in Britain, and as a result, it doesn't matter how right you are, or how polite you are, or how wrong the other guy is. If you're caught, the 'enforcement officer' will run after you and knock you off your bike, and then he will stand up in court and will swear on a stack of bibles and on his dear mum's soul, that you punched him first.
And the court will believe him, and the CCTV in the city centre will have been 'defective' that day.
So only flee if you can be sure of escaping any pursuit in seconds. And don't hit any pedestrians on your way.
Admins, please can you let us delete our own posts when we inadvertently make a duplicate comment?
It's my understanding under the human rights act (?1998?) you may not be stopped , searched or detained without your permission unless you have been arrested by a police officer (ordinarily no-one else carries powers of arrest) before being detained. No one can search you (unless they have a search warrant) without your permission except a police officer under the terms of the prevention of terrorism act, or misuse of drugs act. The officer cannot search you without a warrant unless he is charging you under one of those acts.
If you get stopped by one of these fine wielders in a uniform, simply dismount and walk on. They are not allowed to obstruct or detain you.
Just ride away and don't stop for these people.
I once had a traffic warden try to 'report' me for some minor thing I was doing. I just rode off as he shouted about calling something in etc.
Imagine if you didn't have number plates and the police werent allowed to chase you. Would you stop if they tried to pull for doing 60 in 50 or whatever?
All the kids this is really targeted at won't pay any attention to it and will just ride off. Do the same.
Are there ever any instances of drunken violence or affray in Peterborough?
Have they closed all the pubs and bars as a consequence?
Do people on two feet ever cause alarm or distress, or even simple obstruction to others?
Have they banned pedestrians as a consequence?
The only logical follow-on to this ban is a city centre peopled only by Council wardens, who presumably will have to spend all day fining each other to maintain their profitability.
Peterborough...Mansfield...Bedford...Go fuck yourselves.
Sorry, folks. "Signage" ain't the problem.
Peterborough Council have contracted a firm (at a cost, no doubt) ... to extract "fines"; "fines" which the company pockets.
If I had the misfortune to visit (or worse, live in
) Peterborough, I think I'd want to know a LOT MORE about the people (in the council and in the company) and their links.
This STINKS.
The Council could run it themselves with the same outcome. These pspo are a blunt instrument which can be twisted to target an audience not initially intended. I have seen that with ones being used against homeless people.
Completely agree.
Here in Bristol they have littering fines contracted out to 'civil enforcement officers' and they seem to have been very effective. Of course, people complain about it - mainly smokers as the officers hang around known smoking areas and wait for someone to throw their butt onto the floor. You could argue that the smokers are being targetted, but it's only the smokers that litter that are targetted.
Since these 'officers' are not policeman or eve PCSOs, I don't believe you have to stop for them. Just ask them if you're being detained, and I bet they won't answer.
You are right. You don't have to stop for them, or answer a question. Not even your name.
Double post
This is getting to sound like Top Gear's speed camera Tax on Motorists
Speed limits are obvious though, whereas the claim here is of poor, incomplete, inconsistent signage.
I believe poor signage that does not meet requirements can lead to a speeding fine being overturned.
Missed the sarcasm?
It would only be sarcasm if they were comparable.
Pages